The almighty row resulting from the alleged hacking of computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit continues today.
Climate sceptics are continuing to claim emails obtained and released by hackers show CRU scientists behaving badly. Their ideological friends in the US political system are also stirring.
Republican senator James Inhofe has announced he will launch an investigation into what is, with huge predictability, being called Climategate (see Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails for background).
“I certainly don’t condone the manner in which these emails were released,” he said. “However, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.”
The scientists involved have been hitting back though, denying any wrongdoing.
Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit and centre of the storm, suggested yesterday that the leak of his emails may have been designed to derail the forthcoming Copenhagen talks, where a potential successor to the Kyoto agreement will be discussed. He also insisted there was “no need” for anyone to manipulate climate data as evidence for global warming comes from multiple sources.
He does say he regrets sending some of the emails though.
“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues,” he said in a CRU statement.
“We are, and have always been, scrupulous in ensuring that our science publications are robust and honest.”
More reaction below the fold.
Some of those mentioned in the emails have responded to our requests for comment by saying they must first chat with their lawyers. Others have offered legal threats and personal invective. Still others have said nothing at all. Those who have responded have insisted that the emails reveal nothing more than trivial data discrepancies and procedural debates.
Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.
It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
– Guardian environmental pundit George Monbiot
[T]he emails reveal researchers adamantly opposed to releasing hard-earned data to critics, to avert what they see as time-consuming harassment. This week’s events suggest those decisions were ill-advised.
They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth. If there’s an explanation for what’s going on they can make that explanation.
– Climate change sceptic Lord Lawson calls for an inquiry (Daily Telegraph)
He is quite sceptical about it; he produced a book a few years ago making it clear he is sceptical about it. I am bound to say, however, that the fact that he announces this now has the same ring as what happened at Kyoto. Just before people come to the negotiations, they start throwing in all the doubt about the science.
John Prescott, UK politician and Rapporteur for Climate Change for the Council of Europe, responds to Lawson.
Do you think climate change data is being supressed (sic)?
Yes 90%
No 10%
– Daily Mail online poll
How many other so-called scientists are suppressing inconvenient truths?